It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Moon Thread: Photos and Comments. [HOAX]

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 08:59 PM
link   
This photo is by Dick Sear here [rjsear.com...]



I believe this is last night's telescopic photo because this is the "latest" and current phase of the Moon.

And first off I had to take hue saturation down by 75% and light down by 50%, to get any detail to focus in with the hues showing. I have become very familiar with it. There is an outer shell crafted to appear to be a cratered moon and it is somewhat translucent so the inner shell gets lit by sunlight. There are also "eisenglas" curtains that cover some of the craters, in strips. You've probably all wondered what those "strips" were on Apollo photos particularly.

Please notice the large amount of green [vegetation] recorded in this telescope photo, along the "horizon." That's what it is, vegetation, nothing I added. Notice there are red speckles in it?

Next, I dealt with Brightness, and I relit all the pixels, one-by-one from top down and bottom-up. That's 127 light-pixels relit so their contrast is "balanced-to-the-dark," so we can SEE DEPTH. And the reason there was little depth in the photo as it was, is the camera didn't record subjective colors CMY--just Red, Green and Blue, the common practice.

NOW you can also see artificial lighting [YELLOW], statuary and a large conservatory at 12 o'clock. You can also see that the "holes" go way deep; they're not flat-bottomed. ABOVE the conservatory, there's a small circle--a building. And a photo of THAT BUILDING is here--

which [anonymous] photo was utilized for a 1999 television series. I doubt it was actually a photoshopped simulation because an artist by name would have made a fortune on it, which nobody did because it is unsigned. So, I will assume that it's a real NASA photo simply because nobody copyrighted it to make money off it. :grin:



I'm not going to point out what's present; I never do. That's up to viewers to decide on scale and details. But I see lot of stuff to notice and wonder about. Other photos show very different features, particularly pathways, roadways and architecture.




edit on 16-11-2010 by shechaiyah because: moved photo

edit on 17-11-2010 by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 09:06 PM
link   
Never saw that moon base picture before, sweet...

wild



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Here is the texture of the outer surface, from the 101025 Lunar Photo of the Day.



during daylight hours, a satellite flyby; and notice along the horizon there is something sticking up that shows up as "pink." I don't know what that is.

I had to correct aspect ratio [the Vertical-Horizontal scale] due to pitch, roll and yaw of the satellite, in order to get depth to display appropriately. In the foreground there are lumps and bumps that could be figures walking by, but they don't register because the camera focal point is set to "infinite," so they're just a blur.

That is NASA practice to set all F stops to infinite so that motion in the foreground is never focused on.

I wanted to get peoples' perceptions about this one because it's characteristic of a lot of NASA badly developed photos and I want to know what you see and what you don't see, before I continue.

Shech--



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 09:30 PM
link   
The webpage with the Moon photo was last modified on October 17, 2007. According to the EXIF data on the original image it was taken on April 19,2005. As such an expert in photography I'm surprised you were not able to determine that.

The moonbase did not come from NASA. It is from Space 1999, a dreadful series from the mid 1970's (not 1999). You're right. It isn't exactly "photoshopped". It's a model.


edit on 11/16/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by shechaiyah
 



About time! *jk*

I see the pink stuff, kind of like a haze on the horizon? I'm not sure what that is but it looks interesting.

I do see a floating monolith, I take it thats a satelite?

Also what's the squiggly line circle thing nearly in the middle?



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by shechaiyah
 


I would like to see the Moon in a Different Perspective one day .......From it's Surface ...



i297.photobucket.com...



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by shechaiyah
 

Lunar photo of the Day, 101025?
Do you mean 10/25/10? That's odd because the Lunar Photo of the Day seem to have been discontinued in 2005.
www.lpod.org...




That is NASA practice to set all F stops to infinite so that motion in the foreground is never focused on.


"all F stops to infinite". Yes I can see you are a true expert in photography.
edit on 11/16/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 09:57 PM
link   
I agree with Phage. Being an avid fan of Space 1999 when I was young, that moon base photo is from that movie.

2nd LIne



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



lpod.wikispaces.com...

Here's exactly where I got it, but it's not here. And I usually date my file names, and I filed it on that date.

Would they have switched photographs, later?

:dunno:




edit on 16-11-2010 by shechaiyah because: code error



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by shechaiyah
 

OK. Different LPOD site.
Different image than the one you posted.
lpod.wikispaces.com...



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 10:14 PM
link   
Sorry about that. I need to be more careful, admittedly.

By the way, I have a question I cannot answer at all. I'm having a problem with distances and dimensions from here to the Moon and around and about the Moon.



And this past January 20th, there was an eclipse of the Moon; so I saved off some photos of it.

Well, what do you know? In these four photos, during the maximum eclipse, the Moon is different relative sizes depending on where the photo was taken. Hmm.

Anybody else notice this? How can this BE?


Shech--



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by shechaiyah
 




And this past January 20th, there was an eclipse of the Moon; so I saved off some photos of it.


There was an eclipse of the Sun.

To answer your question: it could be because the image at the lower right is from the eclipse of August 1, 2008, not January 2010. It is also a composite image.

And you are a hoaxer.

www.zam.fme.vutbr.cz...



edit on 11/16/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 10:33 PM
link   
I may be mistaken at times, but I'm not a hoaxer.

I don't mind being told I'm wrong;' but please document your changes, okay?

That way we'll keep things on the up and up.


Shech--



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by shechaiyah
 




And this past January 20th, there was an eclipse of the Moon; so I saved off some photos of it.


There was an eclipse of the Sun.

To answer your question: it could be because the image at the lower right is from the eclipse of August 1, 2008, not January 2010. It is also a composite image.

And you are a hoaxer.

www.zam.fme.vutbr.cz...



edit on 11/16/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)




Now that I think about what you're saying, your objection isn't even salient to the topic.

I'm asking why the Moon appears to be different sizes from different locations compared to the sun.

I'm asking a question, not putting forward any sort of claim.

So, I'm puzzled why you need to start calling me names.

That's not nice.



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by shechaiyah
 

You claimed those four images were from the eclipse of January 2010. At least one of them was not. After discovering that I didn't waste any more time on the others. Easy for you to say "oopsy" but your collage is a hoax. All of the images are not from the Solar (not lunar) eclipse of 2010.

Your image of Moonbase Alpha is not from a 1999 TV series.

The provenance of your image of the shoulder of the Moon is questionable.

Your image manipulation in order to "correct" the images is nonsense, particularly in light of the ignorance toward photography which you have displayed.



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by shechaiyah
I'm asking why the Moon appears to be different sizes from different locations compared to the sun.

Because each photo was taken with a different camera with a different focal length. A rather elementary observation.



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by shechaiyah
Please notice the large amount of green [vegetation] recorded in this telescope photo, along the "horizon." That's what it is, vegetation, nothing I added. Notice there are red speckles in it?

Your methodology is flawed, and portrays a complete lack of knowledge of digital imagery.



In the image I've provided, I used your source image, and place in the lower inset, the modified image you created as a result. All you've down is accentuate the subtle color variations introduced via the JPEG compression process. You can see this by the 500% scale I've applied to your images.

There is no merit to your claims.
edit on 16-11-2010 by mister.old.school because: (typo correction)



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by shechaiyah
And this past January 20th, there was an eclipse of the Moon; so I saved off some photos of it.

Only two of the images you sourced are all from the same date.

amandabauer.blogspot.com...

www.flickr.com...

acidcow.com...
(several images down)



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 11:53 PM
link   
The moon appears to be different sizes because there is variation in the orbit. There are times it is closer and vice versa, because it is so close in comparison to the sun the moon appears to change in size. Just perspective.


Pred...



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 12:07 AM
link   


Here's a pic of the Moon I took a few months ago.

If anyone cares...



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join